-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In the IETF Internationalised Domain Names working group, there is some
discussion about which normalisation mapping to apply to names entered
by users, before looking them up in the DNS. (I'm arguing for using NFC
and disallowing most or all compatibility characters, as opposed to using
NFKC.)

The following characters have compatibility mappings but not canonical
mappings (and also satisfy some other criteria that aren't really
important to my question):

                                                    used in at least
  U+0132 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE IJ                  Dutch
  U+0133 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE IJ                    Dutch
  U+013F LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L WITH MIDDLE DOT     Catalan
  U+0140 LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH MIDDLE DOT       Catalan
  U+0675 ARABIC LETTER HIGH HAMZA ALEPH             Kazakh
  U+0676 ARABIC LETTER HIGH HAMZA WAW               Kazakh
  U+0677 ARABIC LETTER U WITH HAMZA ABOVE           Kazakh
  U+0678 ARABIC LETTER HIGH HAMZA YEH               Kazakh
  U+0E33 THAI CHARACTER SARA AM                     Thai
  U+0EB3 LAO VOWEL SIGN AM                          Lao
  U+0EDC LAO HO NO                                  Lao
  U+0EDD LAO HO MO                                  Lao
  U+FB4F HEBREW LIGATURE ALEPH LAMED                Hebrew

The question I'd like to ask is whether they are produced in practice
by common keyboard drivers and operating systems, without using
cut-and-paste or entering the code point.

I.e. can anyone who has an appropriate keyboard try to determine whether
these characters can be entered in a Unicode-enabled entry field or text
editor, using just normal keyboard input? (U+0E33 and U+0EB3 are
combining marks; any appropriate base character will do.)

Thanks in advance.

- -- 
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO9tEETkCAxeYt5gVAQHNsgf9GZR+tKkapJhulTKPDv5gGDrvzfHjMzyT
Y9SqJzbE1qOjbnvtm3rFYZ9Ew83XgHtajS1pQw2D1VFX71QwkZ4zsHV5UnZu4Pkn
kmXKY33sYT9hYxdDNLxPESEg6th/rjP6te4XNHghzs/AcgUr5UFWobKvlHo2Q9cA
lzqC3xWDb1bt+5EEHmKFWPw0rhqC6tcBBq5bdAyNYCMDYwJwKbG+CRsfPsGv9NkJ
fKTpVTkd34Vf19oUOjBzvxvMYQKLU5n9q1qvYJriqomZy2H9DumhC1tPvu70n7R+
f3LxazMvzRRJb0mw3/StilaYnBfhtM7ok55Idvqxka+vgPJ0/0tblg==
=LSHt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to